About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
. the convention did not so -- to not go so great, especially clint eastwood. paul ryan was a pretty strong collect -- pretty strong selection and was a strong campaigner and pleased the conservative base. on the other hand, the challenger did not when wisconsin, so it didn't pay off and that regard. but the first debate did pay off. romney came in well prepared. for a lot of people predisposed to not like him, he came off as presidential and smart and comfortable with himself. it was obvious the president prepared for the wrong debate. he prepared for romney to take a host of positions he did not put forth in that first debate. -- he was not able to keep it in that debate that followed. three quick narrative that turned out to be true but the american public. americans want to be helpful. during america -- during an election like this, they want to be inspired and told the world can be better. this is the main reason obama was let the first time around. had it was a lot tougher the second time because we're still experiencing a downturn, but he said stick with me and we can do this together. romne
amid romney. -- mitt romney. he goes to paul ryan who is popular with the tea party. he picked him. i think a lot of people say that paul ryan is not really capable. i've got a loaded question for you -- does america really respect a black individual to be their leader? guest: it is good to end on a loaded question. let me say first that john mccain, who was a great senator, and who was the original maverick and had an independent image, i think he had a very difficult time running into thousand eight following eight years of george w. bush. it was likely time for a democratic president to win so i think john mccain had a hard assignment. with respect to the question you asked, i would say that america elected an african-american, barack obama, and after one of the most intense and expensive and bitter campaigns of all time, reelected him. i would say that is a pretty strong statement of respect for him. some people have said to mate there will be a racial vote in this election. i think it is quite likely that the people who voted against barack obama would have voted against a democr
to this question of the fiscal consolidation? some said that paul ryan is saying we are going to leave medicare the way it is -- >> that is more interesting than the specific transfer, because i'm not a sure that the transfer is ultimately sustainable. it makes the math work -- >> more sustainable today than -- [laughter] >> there is certainly far more interested in the broader question of the debt burden. i think it is question that all economists are worried about, this debt-to-gdp ratio and. in the generational context as well. at the people are much more aware after years of a trillion dollar deficits than they were four or five years ago -- >> it is not the generational issue, because young people voted overwhelmingly for -- >> you are basically saying, are we saying to them, you are going to have to bear the burden of all the consolidation and we are going to exempt ourselves from it, because in the right version, for example, nothing really happens for 10 years. we put more money back in for seniors. generationally, does that work? >> there is the time value of money, and if you start a
working with or not working with paul ryan will be returning to the congress or the gang of six or simpson bowles, or anybody who is wrestling around with his issues, how you're going to make progress long term on medicare costs with als mimers which again now 6 million people, $172 billion. for a cumulative cost between now and 2050 is $20 trillion. that's a lot of money. and all the everythings and better management aren't going to change the fact that if people are in a state of dimension sha for a in a nursing home, that's a very costly process and i think it's very unfortunate that these issues did not get raised during the campaign. my friend in the audience here started up the american for curious that the idea that a cure is cheaper than beating a treating a disease. he and i met this morning and the meeting ran long and that's why i'm late and i apologize again for that. i do think that maybe this is just wishful thinking on my part but the urgency of the situation to make budget cuts that don't lead to the political destruction of the people making them, and i speak for both part
, the way i saw it. what mitt romney and paul ryan were doing was to shore up the republican base. the idea in the 21st century anybody would spend any time trying to determine -- and paul ryan is a part of that -- when is a rape ok, and when is rape not ok? someone said the next time they heard a republican questioning something about rape, i want to cut their tongue out. the conversation last night, he had to say that, because he could not eliminate his base. so i guess, the long answer, my point is that they spent too much time cobbling and shoring up their base and not enough time -- cobbling -- coddling and shoring up their base and not enough time elsewhere. they had the edge going into this election, and they blew it. host: calling the pollsters shysters. guest: some of them i would not trust on anything. host: let's go to pennsylvania. independent line, good morning. caller: if you could elaborate on two things. some schools have come out with studies that say if you watch fox news, you are less informed than somebody who does not even watch the news, and secondly -- and that is the
, and remember when paul ryan after the 2010 elections, he was an icon for them, came back to the freshmen and said we cannot do the budget cuts we promised you right now. they threw him out of the room. they are not 6 " to be eager to do that. you can gain significant leverage by moving in that direction, and it would not surprise me that obama has a couple of cards up his sleeve to turn the bully pulpit into a more potent weapon in the next month. >> there are other ways of doing that. one is i think he will have simpson and bowles by his side on this. he has already committed to using that as the framework. there is evidence around that the white house has been working on revisions to that, giving it some specifics that would make it palatable to him and to most democrats as well, and there is also an effort to begin to pull out some major figures in the business community to be at his side. he would not go off the cliff without first having demonstrated what an agreement with book like -- would look like, and having it will support, including potentially some senate republicans with hi
paul ryan should play, and how willing be think he will be on your group? "new york times." >> i hope he is front and center, because he is the best spokesperson on how serious the fiscal situation is and how to put us back on a sustainable path. i think all of us were impressed about how he handled himself on the campaign trail. i hope he is right in the middle of it. i anticipate he is going to be -- i assume that is where my colleagues are as well. >> i would just add to that that when you step back and look at the results and look at some of the conclusions that some have drawn, we are going to be clear of voices of leadership to lay out an agenda for the future. i think paul is a very important part of that. i was glad to see him come back into conference this morning. it was a bore welcome with a double standing ovation, but we are going to need clear voices to articulate future. how do you get to balance the spender we have in the white house? how can we get a balanced budget amendment to the constitution? he has been a supporter of that. he has articulated that support for it
are not expecting turnover. paul ryan is not going anywhere. he will be the budget chairman again it sounds like. he will ask for a waiver. it is safe to say that will be granted. the appropriations and hal rogers from kentucky who is about as old bull as you can get. old prince of earmarks and reformed nonearmarkers now is staying put. fred upton the chairman of the energy and commerce committee where a lot of health care and energy policy go through. the committee of jurisdiction there will be staying for another two years. and ways and -- any type of entitlement stuff. dave camp. he is not going anywhere either. where we are go to see significant committees where there will be turnover is the judiciary committee. he is term limited. he will make a bid for the science committee. he will find himself in competition. ralph hall, the chairman now is term limited. also the transportation and infrastructure committee. there are a few people who happen to have seniority but either have committee assignments or not looked upon as viable. we are passing the baton to a new generation. bill schuster is mak
. i don't know if it is rubio vs hillary or paul ryan vs., you know, you name the candidate, the that is a lot thin for the foreseeable future. as you go from 2008 to 2010 to 2012, we have had a really wild ride. i don't believe there is any locking in. it was not even a generation ago that we talked about a republican majority. politics is a lot more dynamic than to just give a snapshot now and we all ought to rethink everything we believe in. >> i agree with what mark said to a point. i remember distinctly this day after that campaign of john kerry, driving down connecticut avenue, wondering where i will get a job and republicans will run the world forever and i will never be employed. being turned down by several lobbying firms and they have to be very good at this. i totally agree that the world changes. the difference here though is that some of these demographic changes -- the republican party will have to change. the hispanic population is not going away. the reason -- it is getting bigger and more states will get in play. the youth of the outcome until they change --
the election, paul ryan came out very strongly in favor of tom price. suggesting that the -- if tom price wins then paul ryan, his credibility is sort of juiced, will go up in terms of his influence on -- on the republican conference. if price wins it might signal a more conservative, hard-edged bent to the republicans. if mcmorris rodgers wins, it might signal the leadership is starting to get this house in order and wanting to moderate some -- at least its approach. host: hear from chris, republican caller, joining us from round lake, illinois. good morning. chris: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have a question here. as a fiscal cliff comes and you are discussing what to do with it, with social security and medicare, i was wondering why the public employees in congress and senators don't pay into that system, why they are eliminated from it. host: we are running out of time before the house comes in. our caller bringing up one of the many issues that we'll be addressing as we watch the lame duck session. thank you so much for coming in on a busy morning for roll call. house ed
by paul ryan who was the republican vice presidential nominee. and a couple of leadership positions will stay the same, including majority leader eric cantor and house whip kevin mccarthy. we are waiting to hear more about the elections. >> we are waiting to hear what happened from house speaker john boehner. a bit of background, one house republican sought to nominate newt gingrich for house speaker. we will have speaker boehner shortly. nancy pelosi announced that she plans to stay on as the leader of the house democrats and made the announcement at a press briefing and said, quote, i wouldn't think of walking away. we will watch that now while waiting for speaker boehner. >> i think that means most of them are here. good morning. more are coming. more are coming. yesterday, when we gathered here, i began my comments standing here with our new members of congress by saying a picture is worth 1,000 words. that's what they say. i said then and i say now that this picture before you is worth millions of votes. millions of votes. [cheers and applause] >> millions of women's votes that
you have to change the basic structure of medicare, as paul ryan -- medicaid, as paul ryan does. i think you can find great, great savings by working the inefficiencies. anyone that's gone through it knows the inefficiencies in the system. they're just incredible. >> excuse me. john. >> speaker boehner yesterday talked about not increasing tax rates on small businesses. so if that framework could be accomplished, what kind of revenues could be raised within that framework, from your point of view? and could you consider the limit on the value of deductions that the president had in his budget? >> well, first, in terms of small businesses, how do you define a small business and that's again one of the sort of slippery slopes a little bit. do you define a multibillion dollar entertainment company, sports team or hedge fund as a small business because their structure happens to be a business structure? and so i think there's -- i think everyone agrees what we really mean when we say small business, what the typical voter envisions when we mean small business, the local dry cleaner, th
that paul ryan was talking about, a voucher-type system. here is the amount of money you have. it's your responsibility to go out and buy a plan. >> i don't think -- i don't think he'll do that. it was too visual. >> can you get there without doing that? >> you can get there without doing it. it's tough. increasing the age of eligibility to be more close to the actual age at which peach are living as opposed to the age that they were living in 1965 when medicare was adopted, the average age was about 70. it's now closing in on 80. that saves a lot of money every year. i think the president has to show the public and the republicans who he's asking to support higher revenue or tax reform that he's prepared and democrats are prepared to deal courageously with -- >> i think you got to realize here that the president has his own constituency and if he gets too far off -- off the road here, he's going to lose the democrats and particularly the liberal democrats. i mean, it's the democrats who run the united states senate or try to. i saw something the other day that when lyndon johnson was ma
, representative from maryland, a democrat, paul ryan's foil on the budget committee in the house. again, a young, sort of take charge, a charismatic leader. he raised a lot of money. he ran the democratic congressional campaign committee for two cycles. so he has a lot of pull. complicated a little bit by the fact that he and hoyer are friends and they represent the same state and run in the same circles. he was the assistant to the speaker in nancy pelosi's last term as speaker. that seems to be the person who bubbles to the top the most. and a question about what debbie wasserman schultz will do. democratic committee chairman. no one does that job too long. she is looking at a way to leadership. i hate to use terms like the smart money, but the smart money seems to be if pelosi wants to know if a successor and get behind somebody, it would be chris van hollen. >> that shakes. drama makes what is going on in the senate look tame by comparison. what is the lay of the land on the senate side? >> i think it is pretty tame in the senate. with senate democrats adding two seats -- harry reid, dick du
-guessing, should we pick mitt romney and you did. should we have picked paul ryan? why not. he is a smart political figure. and has a lot to offer the party. and that resonated well with the electorate so that second- guessing is typical washington inside craziness. you need to hunker down and look at your ground game and organization and look at your message. you need to look at your messengers and we need messengers who look like me, messengers who are hispanic, asian americans, women. a cross-section of folks who represent communities around the country. what are you hearing -- what are you hearing? guest: i've heard people say that and that's a decision he will make on his own. and the party will judge whether losing two senate seats and the presidential and not much of a ground game is worthy of a reelection. host: a landslide loss for big money. voters ignored most of the outside ads but the danger of unlimited spending remains and a lot of focus on american cross roads and the money spent by carl rove. those people should ask for a refund guest: good luck with that. the return on investment
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)